“Atrocious but necessary”.

A little more than a week ago, Norway became the latest country of the EU to suffer a terrorist attack. Whilst the world is used to outside agents or people working on behalf of foreign terror groups acting against a particular nation, these events stood out because their perpetrator was in fact a Norwegian as well. 

Anders Behring Breivik bombed the capital city Oslo on the 22^nd July just hours before he started to gun down people at a youth holiday camp many miles away on Utoeya Island. The corresponding attacks across different regions of the country show a precise and vicious will; a will deemed by Breivik as “necessary” for his country’s future. 

As concerning as both the events and the lack of response appear to the outside world, the restrained grieving is much more common in Norway, and today, the country’s PM warned against a ‘witch-hunt’ following the crimes.

Justifying these horrors is indeed hard to accept, however the suspect has laid out his plans in a manifesto style for the past three years and consequently his supposed reasoning behind the attacks is laid out in rather a simple manner. Similarities to Nazi doctrine have been drawn, but more and more, people are describing the events of 22^nd July not as terrorism, but extremism.

Extremism is difficult to quantify in that it may encompass elements of terrorism, exuding fear amongst many, but in addition, there is often a political agenda at work. Geir Lippestad, who is Breivik’s lawyer for the case, said that “He wanted a change in society, and from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution.”

To understand this further, we need consider that Breivik’s writings talk of the left’s supposed lenience and call for multiculturalism as negative moves for the country and as a general worldwide. He believes that the ‘Islamism’ of Europe need be prevented, not for common reasons that plague many such as job loss or fear of the different but, so as to preserve national identity and remain focussed on the country’s own populous and well-being. The seemingly contradictory killings were merely means to an end: look how easy it would be for someone to attack. After all, Breivik had been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence.

Described as a quiet man locked in his thoughts, there is no doubt in the mind of Anders Behring Breivik that his actions were “atrocious but necessary” and he denies any criminal responsibility. It remains to be seen whether there will be a plea of mental instability, ergo negating mens rea: for without a vicious will there can be no vicious crime. Of course, such a statement would undermine the (for want of a better word) message for which this man stands. If insane, it would go against his claim for a social revolution.

What is now “atrocious but necessary” is a full scale investigation into the extent of extremism within Europe, as a source of continued threat from within. Whilst it may be a subject rather avoided, if we are to understand the concerns which drive many to such views, there needs be a greater public forum than internet chat rooms - lives could be saved. For as Breivik himself quoted: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." (John Stuart Mill) and for their own safety, this is a belief in which 100,000 should surely have an interest.